from the producing-excessive-noise? dept

Thanks to an enforced climate of fear, law enforcement and security agencies remain deeply suspicious of photography in public places. Despite the fact that most public places are now covered in cameras erected by law enforcement and security, the prevailing view seems to be that a member of the public "armed" with a camera is a threat that should be dealt with immediately. The law is rarely on the side of those doing the law enforcement, oddly enough, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Armed with ignorance, along with guns, tasers, nightsticks and the safety of numbers, these enforcers continue to violate the rights of citizens, often destroying evidence of their misguided actions in the process.

Photographer, blogger, and photographers rights’ activist Carlos Miller has made headlines quite a few times over the past few years with his legal rumbles with authorities over photography in public places. Miller, who often instigates the disputes for the purpose of bringing photographers’ rights into the spotlight, recently had another big confrontation with authorities in Miami (it’s not the first time it has happened).

According to Miller, his friend was photographing Dade County Courthouse from the rail platform and he was photographing his friend... Miller says that they were spotted by a security guard and warned over a loudspeaker to stop shooting photographs. When they didn’t put their cameras away, security guards arrived to confront them.

As is usually the case when the enforcement agency is operating on little more than a combination of gut instinct and vague directives, the security guards spent a bit of time shuffling through their deck of possible charges in hopes of making one stick.

First, they told Miller that it was illegal to photograph the rail portion of the train, something that is completely false. According to Eric Muntan, Chief of Safety and Security of the metro, noncommercial photography is "perfectly fine." (Which didn't stop Miller from receiving a completely unenforceable "lifetime ban" from the Metrorail.)

When challenged on this claim, the responding guard switched over to accusing Miller of being drunk because he smelled alcohol on his breath. Again, there's nothing illegal in Miami about being drunk in public (Miller states he had three drinks in two hours while watching a football game) -- one has to be considered a "threat to public safety" before it's considered a crime.

At that point, they decided trespassing might be the way to go, considering they'd asked Miller to leave and he hadn't. When nothing else worked, the guards wrestled him to the ground, seized his camera, seized the camera his friend was holding (temporarily), before cuffing them both and turning them over to the Miami PD. Miller notes that the guards "surprisingly" returned both phones before releasing them to Miami-Dade law enforcement.

So, the end result is nothing illegal occurred and yet, two people were cuffed and delivered to the police department and handed a $100 fine for "loud noise," most of which was actually created by the three security guards. While no one expects a third-party security team to be familiar with all the legal aspects of their coverage area, one would at the very least expect them to know what comprises legal photography, especially considering the safety chief's directive. This sort of thing applies directly to 50 State's security responsibilities. The fact that this whole situation began with a loudspeaker announcement directing the pair to "stop taking pictures" gives it another layer of unseemly Big Brother-ish state-ordained paranoia. There was no legal basis for the stop and no evidence of any wrongdoing, but those "securing" the Metrorail went ahead and shut them down anyway, because that's the attitude fostered all the way up the line to the DHS.

from the good-for-him dept

We've linked to the blog, PhotographyIsNotACrime.com (PINAC), a few times in the past (it recently moved locations). Its author, Carlos Miller, not only covered a number of cases involving photographers being arrested or harassed for photographing buildings, police or something else, but was a defendant in just such a case himself. Miller was arrested back in January while videotaping police at an "Occupy Miami" event. Not only was he arrested, but his camera was confiscated and the police deleted footage from the camera -- including footage of the encounter that led to his arrest. The police claimed that Miller had disobeyed an order by the police to "clear the area." However, the videotaped footage -- which Miller was able to recover despite the deletion -- showed a different story. It showed a clearly-aware-of-his-rights Miller making the case that he was doing nothing wrong. Furthermore, other journalists were allowed to stay in the area, and one of those journalists, Miami Herald reporter Glenn Garvin, testified at the trial about how he was allowed to stay. In fact, he went to the officer who arrested Miller and asked her if he needed to move, and she told him he was "under no threat of getting arrested."

It also turned out that police were specifically on the lookout for Miller:

An e-mail disclosed during the trial showed the police had been monitoring Miller's Facebook page and had sent out a notice warning officers in charge of evicting the Occupy Miami protestors that Miller was planning to cover the process.

Given all that, it's not too surprising that the jury wasted little time in finding him not guilty. But the case isn't over just yet. Miller is vowing to sue, claiming the arrest and (attempted) deletion from his camera violated his constitutional rights. And he's got some precedent on his side. As we've noted, Boston recently had to pay Simon Glik $170,000 after an appeals court ruled, in a similar case, that his arrest for filming police was a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments -- though that was based on wiretap laws, so it was slightly different. Either way, Miller's follow up suit should be worth watching.

from the protecting-the-first-amendment dept

Sadly, we talk way too often about police arresting people for doing nothing other than taking a picture or filming them. The police officers being filmed and photographed make these arrests using various excuses, but frequently the charges get dropped for lack of merit. The reason charges rarely stick when an officer is filmed is because filming police, or anyone in a public space, is not illegal. Some people may not like it, but it is a fact.

The New York Times is waking up to this fact that photography is not a crime. In an interview with Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counselor for the National Press Photographers Association, they get down to the nitty gritty of the legalities surrounding this age old tradition. They also talk a bit about just why such arrests are happening more frequently.

Since 9/11, there’s been an incredible number of incidents where photographers are being interfered with and arrested for doing nothing other than taking pictures or recording video in public places.

It’s not just news photographers who should be concerned with this. I think every citizen should be concerned. Tourists taking pictures are being told by police, security guards and sometimes other citizens, “Sorry, you can’t take a picture here.” When asked why, they say, “Well, don’t you remember 9/11?”

I haven't really thought of criminalizing photography as something to do with 9/11 before. I know that a lot of our rights have been eroded since that day, but the photography aspect never really clicked until now. Just as Mickey can't make heads nor tails of this argument, I am struggling to find a connection here. I don't recall cameras being a part of the plots to destroy the Twin Towers, Pentagon or White House.

Of course there could be more reasons for this increase in arresting photographers. Mickey suspects that part of the reason is the proliferation of the camera. Pretty much everyone with a smart phone has a camera capable of taking some very high quality pictures. Prior to this boom, the police had some modicum of control over the press. They knew the press wasn't going to be everywhere and were used to not being under constant recordable surveillance by the public. Now that anyone could be filming them or taking their picture, they are more on edge and more prone to lashing out.

When this happens, it is important for those accused to know their rights. However, it is also important for the police to know the public's rights as well. While you, as a photographer, may know that you have the right to take pictures or film in a public space, some officers may not know or may have forgotten that fact. That is why the Mickey and others have been working with police to keep officers reminded of that right.

Q. After photographers were stopped from photographing the police clearing Occupy Wall Street protestors from Zuccotti Park, you and representatives of a media coalition including The Times, met with the police commissioner Ray Kelly. What happened at that meeting?

A. It was on Nov. 23. I asked the commissioner if he would reissue the “finest message” from 1999 that dealt with the police cooperating with the press. He did that. It was read at 10 consecutive roll calls in every single station house and precinct.

The finest message is a policy statement on police interactions with the press. It states that officers are not to interfere with videotaping and photographing in public places. It also reminds officers that they have an obligation to assist the press whenever possible. This is very similar to the recent news when the DC police chief laid down the law on filming of officers.

Hopefully, continually repeating this message will help slow down this barrage of arrests for photographing the police. As more officers are reminded of the rights of the cameras-wielding public, we will hopefully start to see fewer future incidents. It would be great if other police departments across the nation follow the lead of NY and DC police in proactively spreading the word about the rights of the public to record and photograph the police.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Digital photography has created a massive amount of incredible images. Although professional photography has and always will require quite a bit of skill, the rise of amateur photographers is unmistakable. We've pointed out some cool photography before, and here are just a few more examples.

from the not-getting-the-point dept

Via Rob Hyndman, we discover that at least one chef believes that taking photos of food he cooks, and then posting them on the internet, is "taking" his "intellectual property." We've discussed in the past how restaurants are yet another area where a lack of copyright protection has actually helped innovation thrive. But, that doesn't mean that some chefs don't still feel excessive levels of ownership over certain aspects of what they do. We've occasionally seen lawsuits between similar restaurants, but could you take it even further?

The article linked above, from Eater, talks to a number of different chefs to get their opinion on diners photographing the food that they're served. Most seem to have a grudging acceptance of the practice. The first chef, Sean Brock (from Husk and McCrady's in Charleston, South Carolina) appears to be the most enthusiastic, saying that he actually loves it when diners photograph the menu, because it even helps remind him what they made and also puts more pressure on the cooking staff to make sure the plates look good. However, a couple chefs down, there's RJ Cooper (from Rogue 24 in DC). He admits that they allow (non-flash) photography, mainly because he can't really stop it. But he's certainly not happy about it. After being asked if his opinion about people photographing dinner had changed, he said:

No, I still have the feeling. You're there for the dining experience with your companion, not to take photos of food. They publish food photos without your consent, which is taking intellectual property away from the restaurant. And also, generally, the photographs are terrible.

I'm curious how this is "taking intellectual property away from the restaurant." Unfortunately, it seems like yet another sign of the kind of "ownership culture" that is being spread by copyright maximalists these days -- encouraging the world to think they have "ownership" over things they have absolutely no rights to. The restaurant can legally refuse to serve someone, or kick someone out of their restaurant for taking a photograph if they wanted (though, that would likely hurt the restaurant's reputation), but there simply is no serious intellectual property issue in having someone take a photograph of the dinner they were served. Is there a lawyer crazy enough to make an argument that the cooking and plating process creates enough creativity in a "fixed" manner that it deserves copyright? Perhaps, but even then I'd have a hard time believing the photograph was not perfectly legitimate fair use.

All in all, I think it's unfortunate that we keep seeing more and more examples of people believing they "own" aspects of culture and can prevent others from sharing them, and regret that this is what our culture has become in an era where kids are being (incorrectly) taught that copyright is just like "property" for things you create. It leads people into thinking they "own" anything they do.

from the filming-police-is-a-right dept

Just as we've seen the DOJ come out and scold police for taking away people's rights by arresting people photographing or videotaping police, we have two separate stories (found via PetaPixel) of photographers who were arrested by police for taking photos of public protests, both of whom had their cases dropped due to videotaped evidence from others that was posted to YouTube.

The two cases were unrelated, but have a similar fact pattern (and one not particularly different than previous stories we've seen). One case, in Seattle, involved a photographer named Joshua Garland, who started photographing recent protests in downtown Seattle, and was arrested and charged with third degree assault supposedly for "grabbing a police officer's hand and twisting his arm." Garland's lawyer, Andrea Robertson, went on YouTube and was able to piece together videos of the incident, which she then showed to prosecutors, saying that the video footage made it clear "there was absolutely no way that the officer's account of events is what actually happened." Because of that, police dropped the charges.

Meanwhile, dealing with a similar issue in New York, photographer Alexander Arbuckle actually went to trial, where, once again someone else's YouTube footage helped exonerate him (and show that the police appeared to lie). In this case, he was charged with "disorderly conduct" (which we see a lot in cases where police arrest photographers for photographing or videotaping them. The police officer claimed, under oath in court, that Arbuckle was in the street and blocking traffic, leading to the arrest.

Thankfully (or, if you're the police, unfortunately), there was a lot of evidence contradicting that statement. This included Arbuckle's own photos, which were taken from the sidewalk, and (more importantly) a Ustream video from a guy named Tim Pool "showed that not only was Arbuckle on the sidewalk, so were all the other protestors." As the Village Voice notes, "the only thing blocking traffic on 13th Street that night was the police themselves." Here's the video, with the key section being from 31:50 until about 35:00.

As Petapixel points out, this certainly suggests that the police lied under oath.

Oh, and a bit of irony: Arbuckle was at that protest to try to document the cops' side of the story, saying that he felt the media had been unfair in covering the police, portraying them as aggressors, when he didn't believe that was true. Yeah.

Either way, this highlights a couple of related points:

Police across the country continue to arrest photographers on completely bogus charges -- despite courts (and the Justice Department) making it clear that this is legal activity. In at least some cases, it appears that they are then willing to lie about it in court.

Similarly, this demonstrates the importance of being able to photograph and film police while on duty, to provide evidence when there is wrongdoing. That the "wrongdoing" involved incorrectly arresting other photographers only serves to make this point even stronger.

It's really amazing to me how frequently we see stories like this. It's good that these two cases both got dropped, though crazy that either one existed in the first place, let alone that one of them went all the way to court.

from the it-should-have-been-$0 dept

A few years back, we wrote about how a sculptor who had been contracted by the US government to create the Korean War Memorial in Washington DC was suing the US Postal Service because it had released a stamp using a photograph of the Memorial. There were all sorts of issues with this, starting with the fact that the US government should never commission a monument in which it does not also get the copyright. Leaving it with the artist is ridiculous, because now we have a public memorial, which gets photographed a ton, and a single photographer artist has control over it? Why would the government allow this? The second problem was that this seemed like a classic case of fair use. The photo was clearly transformative from the original work, where most of the power of the photo is in other elements beyond the statue (the snow, the lighting, etc.). Unfortunately, however, the appeals court for the federal circuit (CAFC) made one of its all too typical bizarre rulings and decided that the photo was infringing. As we noted at the time, it rejected the transformative nature of the photo by claiming those were "nature's choices," which would effectively eliminate all nature photography from being covered by copyright.

That said, the case has continued, as the follow up fight was about how much the sculptor, Frank Gaylord, should get. The district court looked at typical licensing deals from the US Postal Service and realized they usually pay a couple thousand dollars. The highest amount it could find was $5,000, so they awarded him that. Gaylord appealed, asking for 10% of all revenue from the stamp, which he estimated would be around $3 million on the $30.2 million in revenue made already. That's a pretty big difference. CAFC has once again sided with him saying that the lower court was wrong to just award him $5,000, without taking into consideration how much Gaylord might have wanted to license the work for in the first place. The lower court will now have to reconsider, and the US taxpayer may have to pay this guy a ton of money yet again.

So, can we convince the federal government of a rather simple idea going forward: if you have someone create a memorial or statue or piece of artwork for public display, part of the deal is they put the whole thing into the public domain. If they don't like it, find another artist. The fact that this work is not in the public domain is a travesty. The fact that the photo is not considered fair use on the sculpture in the first place is a travesty. The fact that he may end up getting another batch of money for this is a travesty. And all of it could have been avoided if someone (anyone) in the US government realized ahead of time that artwork created for public display should belong to the public.

from the they-can't-be-serious dept

Two years ago, we wrote about one of the most bizarre copyright lawsuits we've ever heard of. News giant AFP (Agence France Presse) -- for reasons that I still cannot begin to comprehend -- decided to proactively sue a photographer, Daniel Morel, after it (AFP) had taken his photos (of the earthquake in Haiti) from TwitPic without permission, and distributed them for sale via Getty Images. So why did AFP sue? Because Morel contacted them upon discovering this, demanding lots of money. And what was AFP's reasoning? Well, it tried to claim that Twitter's terms of service allowed this. There were all sorts of problems with that idea. First of all, the photo was on Twitpic, not Twitter, and the two are different companies. But, more importantly, neither of the terms of service from Twitter nor Twitpic (AFP eventually figured out the difference) allowed AFP to do what it claims. The AFP appeared to deliberately misinterpret the terms of service, which simply give Twitpic the right to make use of the images -- but that does not extend to third parties automatically, which is what AFP implied.

Oh, and did we mention that AFP itself has a history of copyright maximalism, including suing Google for merely linking to AFP stories, with AFP's headline showing in Google News?

And, it gets even worse. During discovery, Morel seems to have received a bunch of pretty damning evidence from AFP suggesting that the company knew all along what it was doing. There was the fact that AFP's director of photography for North and South America reached out to Morel prior to downloading the images. The same guy apparently copies other images from other sites. Multiple people seemed to suggest from the very beginning that they shouldn't use these photos -- including the Director of Photography at Getty, who pointed out that Morel regularly used rival photo agency Corbis. There was also some other damning evidence, including editing the copyright management info, and uploading the image under multiple names, and only issuing a kill notice on one name.

Oh yeah, and then there was the fact that someone inside the AFP sent an email saying:

Anyway, AFP got caught with a hand in the cookie jar and will have to pay.

And this was before AFP decided to sue Morel. Perhaps the company should have just paid up in the first place.

from the knowledge-spreads dept

Scientific American photography blogger Alex Wild recently wrote about his experience in discovering that one of his photos had been copied by a (now deceased) artist for an illustration that ran in the L.A. Times. In many ways Wild's attitude is commendable: he recognizes that copying is a complex issue, and ends the post with an open question about what's appropriate and how he should react. But at the same time, I think he misses the mark with some of his statements, and focuses on the wrong aspects of copying in making his case for why he feels ripped off.

Wild is an entomologist by trade, who built a photography business alongside his scientific work. The photo that was copied is a fairly straightforward snapshot of an ant:

There can be little doubt that the illustration is directly copied from the photo. But the question is, what creative contribution did Wild make himself? As he says in the blog post:

The sketch could never have existed without my original image nor without my taxonomic expertise in identifying the species. I received no acknowledgement for my part. Somebody else got paid for my efforts, and I got… an excuse to write a blog post, I suppose. What I mean is, I feel like a chump.

But Wild's work could never have existed without the ant itself, and it seems like the primary purpose of the image is simply to document the appearance of the species. Facts aren't covered by copyright, and that's not just a legal nuance, it's a reflection of common sense: just because we observe and collect factual information about the world—even if we are the first to do so—doesn't mean we deserve any control over that information. We may expect to receive a certain amount of recognition, and we may certainly seek to capitalize on the information ourselves (since we are probably in an advantageous position to do so), but we don't get perpetual credit or payment. Knowledge cannot be owned.

What was copied from the photograph was simply the knowledge of what the ant looks like, and indeed the photo contained very little beyond that to begin with. It's a catalogue-style shot in terms of framing and composition, and the few arguably creative choices—the surface the ant is standing on, the depth of field—were not copied at all in the illustration. The only thing that was copied is the photograph's subject, which Wild didn't create. Perhaps it would have been nice if the illustration included a credit to the original photo, but the simple fact is that knowledge about our world is always going to spread beyond such concerns, and that's no reason to feel hard done by.

So I don't think this is really a question of copying art so much as repeating facts—but even from an artistic perspective, Wild goes on to show that he's still open to other thoughts on the matter:

Artists and photographers are, deep down, 90% unoriginal. We borrow each others’ ideas. We forget where they came from. We copy, transpose, modify, build on, and find inspiration from diverse other people. Much of our unoriginality is acceptably divergent, and this is a good thing. Art could not exist at all were all forms of copying verboten.

That's a very refreshing statement. He then says he thinks this instance crossed a line, but his mind isn't entirely made up. I hope that, on further consideration, he'll realize that this is something even more basic than artistic inspiration—it's a proliferation of knowledge about the natural world, and one that shouldn't make him feel like a chump at all.

There's something oddly fascinating about all of these. I've included some more below, but there are a lot more in the original post. It's like a virtual museum of warning labels. Of course, it makes you wonder (or, maybe it just makes me wonder) who designs the warning labels, and how they settle in on the graphic choices. Similarly, figuring out exactly what you warn about could be a challenge. I like the one that says you have to wear goggles just to observe this machine. I suddenly have the urge to put warning labels on all my gadgets.